ABSTRACT
This chapter draws out the paradox that in order to understand a myth, one is impelled to find an abstract truth in it: but when one has done so the myth still seems to illuminate the truth, and not the truth it. C. S. Lewis's doctrine may be contrasted with Levi-Strauss's explanation of the undoubted fact of the polysemous quality in myths: that they have no meaning of their own, but serve to structure and confer meaning on other contexts of fact. The idea that 'the story of Christ is simply a true myth' found a further response in Lewis' mind from something that had been lying for five and a half years. Saturninus Salustius Secundus indeed regards the world of particulars in which they could happen as worse than the eternal world, and creation as somehow regrettable, while the Christian insists that creation is the work of God's love. Naturally, therefore, Salustius' allegorical interpretation of myth separates idea from symbol.
